Who won the Virginia debate? Experts weigh in

Republican Ken Cuccinelli probably did not do enough to shake up the gubernatorial race in Virginia in his debate against Democratic frontrunner Terry McAuliffe on Thursday.

But the candidates’ exchange on guns and the National Rifle Association, as well as their bids to attract supporters away from Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis, could play a role in the final 12 days of the race.

Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics

“It’s hard to imagine that the final Virginia gubernatorial debate moved the needle at all. Terry McAuliffe has held a consistent lead in the polls for months now, and nothing happened tonight that would obviously change that. We’re getting to the point of the race where Cuccinelli needs something dramatic to change the race, and while there are many words one could use to describe this debate, dramatic certainly isn’t one of them. Complicating matters for Cuccinelli is that the debate wasn’t even televised in much of the state. In other words, McAuliffe was the big winner in the debate, not necessarily because he performed better than Cuccinelli, but simply because he got over one of the last remaining hurdles on the path to the governorship.”

“Good performance by Ken Cuccinelli, and a near disaster for Terry McAuliffe on the Second Amendment. ‘I don’t care what grade I got from the NRA’ is not something that rural Virginians, mothers caring for the safety of their children, or concerned fathers want to hear. Every successful Democratic gubernatorial nominee has always put an arm around the guys and gals wearing orange vests. For McAuliffe to reject them is a red flag and a moment of panic in an election where turnout is predicted to be low and enthusiasm even lower. … The real question will be whether or not the Cuccinelli campaign is nimble enough to get the word out. To many Virginians where hunting is a family tradition, McAuliffe’s repudiation on guns is going to sting.”

Frank Shafroth, director of the Center for State and Local Leadership at George Mason University

“I noted that one viewer commented that this was a debate that could only appeal to the hardcore and 100 percent committed voters. Neither candidate offered an inspiring roadmap for the future of the Commonwealth; both devoted more time to what was wrong with the other. … Perhaps one of the most surprising non-issues was ethics. No question was raised — in a campaign that appears to have garnered little enthusiasm [from] voters — about how to restore public trust in Richmond. The closest was the question asking how it could be that the two candidates had secured over $40 million in campaign contributions, while Mr. Sarvis has garnered far more support per dollar of campaign contributions that either of the two main candidates.”

Who won? “Sarvis.”

Bob Holsworth, Virginia political analyst

“The most interesting feature was McAuliffe’s absolute defiance of the NRA —‘I could care less about what grade I get from the NRA’ — in which he is obviously betting that the political landscape of Virginia has been altered dramatically over the past decade. While TMAC proudly positioned himself as Mark Warner’s political first cousin, his stance on guns was 180 degrees different from Warner, who ran 12 years ago as a NASCAR Democrat and created blaze-orange organizations such as Sportsmen for Warner. Cuccinelli placed a heavier emphasis on the failures of Obamacare than previously, repositioning himself as the anti-Washington candidate — but I think that TMAC has made guns more central to the last 10 days of the campaign.”

Who won? “No definitive winner. McAuliffe probably enhanced the comfort level of Democrats and Independents who are supporting him about his capacity to run the government. … The debate gave Cuccinelli’s activist base, for the first time in the campaign, reason to get excited.”

“Terry went into this debate leading in every poll taken since early summer, so all he needed was a draw. Instead, he did even better tonight, out-performing Ken Cuccinelli both substantively and stylistically. While Cuccinelli flailed around, ranted about the supposed evils of ‘Obamacare,’ and claimed that telling the truth about his own extreme record and his own intolerant remarks over the years has somehow constituted a ‘false attack’ on him, Terry McAuliffe talked about moving Virginia forward in the pragmatic, moderate style of Mark Warner. … The contrast between these two candidates in that area - and in all areas, really - couldn’t be greater, as Ken Cuccinelli has been perhaps THE most divisive figure in Virginia political history.”

(Feld is consulting for Democratic attorney general candidate Mark Herring this cycle, and shared the conclusion of his debate live-blog with POLITICO.)

Quentin Kidd, political scientist at Christopher Newport University

“My sense going in was that Cuccinelli would need to be more aggressive on McAuliffe and McAuliffe would need to be careful not to get drawn into an aggressive exchange where he made a gaffe that would dominate the last couple weeks of the campaign. Cuccinelli was aggressive, but McAuliffe was also aggressive - more so than I thought he would be, and he avoided any big gaffes. In the end, thought it was a tie on points, and I don’t think it will change many minds. The undercurrent story line is Robert Sarvis. Both sides made a pitch for the Sarvis supporters, but I doubt many of them were won over by it.”